| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 05:14:14PM +1000, Andrew Ross wrote: |
| 2 |
> Are you talking about this (http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/stow.html)? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Yep, exactly. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I agree with vapier that an eclass would be the best way to implement |
| 7 |
> stow support. However, optional eclass inheritence makes DEPEND and IUSE |
| 8 |
> dynamic, which, IIRC, is currently a big no-no. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ok, haven't heard of an eclass, so will have to read up. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > This would allow people to maintain different versions of the same |
| 13 |
> > application on their systems at the same time. Just stow/unstow at will |
| 14 |
> > to switch. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Isn't that the purpose of SLOTs? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes, and that's how some of the gcc's are done. Unfortunately, slots seem |
| 19 |
to require developer resources to make work, and therefore aren't done |
| 20 |
on a consistent basis. I.e. not all of the gcc's are slot-enabled, let |
| 21 |
alone KDE or Gnome or mozilla, etc. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I figured this would be an architecture variable, and would require much |
| 24 |
less developer effort, and be pretty much system-wide. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks for the reply! |
| 27 |
- Chris |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives